MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969793337 · doi:10.4161/cib.3.1.9634

Sympatric predator detection alters cutaneous respiration in Lymnaea

2010· article· en· W1969793337 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunicative & Integrative Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympatric speciationBiologyAllopatric speciationPredatorPredationEcologyLymnaeaZoologyRespirationCrayfishSnailBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of an organism to detect a predator and then to take the appropriate vigilance actions is paramount for survival of the species. Lab-reared snails (>250 generations) maintain their ability to detect predators and alter both aerial and cutaneous respiration. However, only the scent of a sympatric predator altered aerial respiration in freshly collected 'wild' snails. Here we test the hypothesis that the detection of a sympatric predator but not an allopatric predator will alter cutaneous respiration in freshly collected 'wild' snails. We find that Alberta snails while altering their cutaneous respiration to the scent of a sympatric predator (tiger salamander) do not alter respiration to the scent of a crayfish (an allopatric predator). In Dutch snails there is a greater alteration to the scent of crayfish (sympatric predator) than to an allopatric predator (tiger salamander).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it